Me, too, leaning towards more 1) than 2). Oh, you’re talking about the Oz books now, not Harry Potter.

I think Jinjur’s Army is a fairly obvious lampoon of the suffragette movement. Don’t forget that Baum’s mother-in-law was Matilda Joslyn Gage. Adult men in the Oz books tend to be rather ineffectual (if I recall correctly, Baum’s wife Maud handled his business affairs) or antagonistic, and I believe Baum was a personal supporter of women’s suffrage. So I’d say “feminist, but good-naturedly condescending”, Richard.

Also, I’m frequently torn about whether the books are (1) sexist, (2) feminist (3) progressive for their time, but regressive now, (4) par for their time, but regressive now.

Most fully, there is the invasion of General Jinjur’s army in Book 2. General Jinjur is upset that women have no power in the kingdom, so raises an army to take over Oz (feminist), her army is armed with sewing pins (par for the time), they are upset that all the emeralds are being used by men in an impractical manner to make the city beautiful (feminist), they want to use the emeralds to make pretty clothes (sexist). Their military strategy is based on the assumption that men wouldn’t hit a girl (sexist/par for the time), they eventually take over and make the men do their share of the work (feminist), but are happy to give up power when the royal heir appears, because the men are doing such a crappy job of the housework anyway.

In a later book, we run into General Jinjur again in passing—she is now a happy housewife, having found a docile husband who apparently lets her beat him up.

And I must respectfully disagree with agm. Giving characters names that resound with their attributes is a noble literary tradition. I can still laugh out loud at the antics of Fighting Bob Acres, Sir Peter Teazle and Mrs. Malaprop, or hear someone introduced as Uriah Heep and know who’s coming even before I’ve seen WC Fields do what needs to be done.

(For pete’s sake, Slytherin is just a horrible name for a house, it plays on people’s conception of snakes, prejudicing them unfairly. Fluffy was amusing, yes, as well as the use of nicknames for Voldemort, but repeating the full name of Whoever-the-hell’s Every Flavor Beans every single time is grating.)

I don’t think that it is very likely that we will be reading about any house quidich matches in Book 7.

Perhaps the editors could start a Potter thread for people who have read the book and want to post spoilers.

It is a shame (as others have mentioned) that other writers didn’t get the same degree of recognition. Garner and Le Guin are great examples, but Diana Wynne Jones is a little closer to Rowling in genre (she’s also done “witch school” novels) and generally quite a bit better.

The Harry Potter novels have a lot of good points to them, chief amongst which is their general good humour and easy-going approach to plot and character (something which has probably been lost a bit with the last couple). One also find a lot of frustrating aspects though – they are so hideously formulaic in structure, and the overall arc of the seven-book series is so deadening, that maintaining interest is becoming a chore lightened only by repeated “pseudo-twists” where events unfold in just a slightly different way than one might have expected.

I disagree that Rowling is anti-authority. Rowling is for authority in the hands of a particular class of people – the “special” people whose “extra talents” are really just class markers. Dumbledore is head of Hogwarts, and Hogwarts is the centre of all events in Rowling’s fantasy universe. Yes, Dumbledore and Harry ignore the authority of the Ministry of Magic, but only because they themselves are the true authority. Dumbledore’s reliable but distant benevolence reminds me of Richard the Lionheart in the Robin Hood tales.

Finished it : imho one of the best, after Prisoner of Azkaban.

Riddle’s youth is one of the good part of the book, and a nice impression, in a few brush strokes, i’d have liked more.

Slightly dissappointed to see Fudge and Dursley senior fade away a bit : Rowling is always good with authority-assholes.

I suppose Fleur had to be snobbish – she’s right about the meat cooking, though. And the socks are here!

Wax: great response to Joel, and I concur fully with your assessment of Michiko Kakutani’s judgement. In particular, the final, terrible revelation in this volume makes it absolutely clear that Rowling has been carefully and consistently laying in front of us evidence of someone’s perfidy since at least Book 3, maybe earlier, and most of us (like most of her characters!) didn’t see it.

Profwombat: a great assessment of Rowling, and you’re right about her skill with names; what a tremendous ear the woman has.

Katherine: your complaint about Rowling’s slow middle sections seems, I think, truer than it actually is, because it was so grossly true of Book 5. You’ll think it’s true of this book as well, but…wait, I’ve said too much already.

And a lot of it is because “everyone else is doing it” too of course—I do think there are better books out there.

As for why adults and children both get involved, there’s two generations of sympathetic, interesting characters. I read the first two because they were fun and you could read them in one sitting and to see what the fuss was about. It wasn’t until Azkaban that I was really drawn.

Unfortunately, she’s developed two bad habits in plotting with the last two:—long, frustrating slow middle sections where no one talks to anyone else & we just sort of meander around—followed by a stirring conclusion in which All Is Revealed.

I think it’s a combination of lack of editing on account of overwhelming success, having the beginning and end of the series better plotted than the middle, and the sorts of crutches many authors have which are noticeable when you read so many books by them about the same characters.

And, series are nice because you already know the characters. She’s really done a pretty good job overall having them age.

Haven’t read the sixth one yet.